Amid the Thiruparankundram hill dispute and Tamil Nadu’s refusal to enforce a single-judge order allowing Karthigai Deepam near a dargah, former Madras High Court judge Justice S.S. Sundar criticised the ruling, questioning permission for a practice despite law-and-order warnings.
TAMIL NADU: Amid the dispute over Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai and the Tamil Nadu government’s refusal to enforce a single-judge order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp near a dargah, former Madras High Court judge Justice S.S. Sundar has sharply criticised the ruling.
He questioned how the court could permit the introduction of a new religious practice despite clear warnings from the State and law-enforcement authorities regarding potential law and order problems.
Justice Sundar contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable to determine whether the petitioner had a right to light the Karthigai Deepam at a particular spot. While acknowledging that Article 25 of the Constitution protects the right to practise religion and express faith through recognised rituals, he emphasised that this right is not absolute and is subject to constitutional limitations.
He noted that there was no established custom or practice for lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the hilltop that could justify judicial recognition.
He cautioned that ‘constitutional courts must remain mindful of their limits, especially when facing disputed factual claims’.
Further criticizing the ruling, Justice Sundar questioned the logic behind allowing a practice opposed by the Devasthanam, which maintained that the lamp should only be lit in its traditional location. He also highlighted documented law-and-order issues, which were supported by official records.
He added that previous constitutional court judgments were consistent with settled legal principles on what qualifies as an essential religious practice under Article 25.
However, he stated that the learned judge in this case had exceeded that framework by observing that, even if the lighting of the Deepam was not a recognised custom, it was still necessary to assert the temple’s claim over the lower peak by lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon.
Justice Sundar criticized the rationale that this act was not a religious matter, but rather a necessity to protect the temple’s property, stating that such reasoning exceeded judicial boundaries.
He pointed out that similar requests had been denied by the High Court on three previous occasions, and given the ongoing law and order concerns, the situation should have been addressed under Section 63(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
He warned that a hasty judicial decision on such a sensitive issue could fuel communal tensions and disturb peace throughout the state. Justice Sundar remarked that instead of providing constructive resolutions, some judges seemed inclined to propose ‘brilliant ideas‘ that lacked wisdom.
The dispute revolves around Thiruparankundram hill, home to both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple and the Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badshah Dargah. The controversy began when Hindu organisations such as the Hindu Makkal Katchi and Hindu Munnani sought permission to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon stone lamp pillar, located about 15 metres from the dargah.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan issued the contested order while hearing a contempt case brought by Hindu Makkal Katchi founder Ram Ravikumar, who alleged non-compliance with a prior directive that permitted the ceremonial lamp lighting at the Deepathoon.
However, the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government declined to enforce the order, citing significant law and order risks after clashes at the site between police and Hindu groups. The state even sought to join the Union Home Ministry as a party to the proceedings.
Last month, the state informed the court that the Deepathoon is not part of the Hindu community and was never intended for the Karthigai Deepam ritual.
Senior advocate N. Jothi, representing the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, asserted that the pillar historically related to Digambara Jain monks and was just a lighting structure for gatherings, referencing an ancient archaeological source.
The state reiterated that the historical and religious significance of the pillar could not be adjudicated at this point, as such a determination is restricted under the Act. Supporting this position, the dargah representatives claimed that Justice Swaminathan did not provide them with a fair hearing.
These developments have coincided with the INDIA bloc MPs initiating an impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan. Counsel for the dargah cautioned that allowing lamp lighting so near the shrine would result in overcrowding and inconvenience for the minority community.
He clarified that the land was allocated to the dargah in 1920, and claims by Hindu devotees regarding ownership over the pillar threatened the community’s enjoyment of the property.
He stressed that the core of the dispute pertains to property rights rather than emotional or religious sentiments, asserting that any claims of Hindu customary practice must be demonstrated in a civil court.
Justice Swaminathan’s order had mandated the lighting of the lamp by December 4, allowing only a small group of devotees, under police protection, to perform the ritual. His directive dismissed objections from both temple and dargah authorities.
The state’s refusal to comply has triggered protests, confrontations with law enforcement, and has escalated the issue into a significant political, religious, and judicial flashpoint in Tamil Nadu.